So we hit the debt limit...

[MadImmortalMan]

It's a great piece except for the part you quoted. 

Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.

I would put it somewhat cynically as follows: the Republicans are calculating that, if the economy tanks because no deal is reached, it will harm the current president and not them.

Not only that, but the stick to go with that carrot is that if they do cave in without getting a big concession, their voters will crucify them.

[Razgovory]

Many GOP members may not care about deficit reduction, but a majority probably do. More importantly, their constituencies very much do. Even if they wanted not to reduce the deficit, it's a politically impossible position for them to take.

I doubt they actually do care.  Most of them wouldn't know about it if the GOP machine wasn't ginning them up.  When the GOP stops talking about the deficit then it's voters will stop caring. You know, like the last time.

[Legbiter]

So when will the US go bankrupt? Is it the first of August or the second? 

Oh, and the entire Rebublican party should be taken out back and shot in the back of the head. Let Canada annex the whole failed state.

[The Minsky Moment]

"...under the weight of its own internal contradictions" 

I asked you then what the internal contradictions were, don't recall receiving an answer.

[The Minsky Moment]

Should they just sue Congress then?  Or is the Supreme Court so full of Republican creatures that it wouldn't be helpful?

Unlikely the Supreme Court would hear the merits; they would probably pass on it as a political question between two coordinate branches.

[derspiess]

I doubt they actually do care.  Most of them wouldn't know about it if the GOP machine wasn't ginning them up.  When the GOP stops talking about the deficit then it's voters will stop caring. You know, like the last time.

There's a point where we're all gonna have to care.

[Grallon]

There's a point where we're all gonna have to care.

Before or after the US goes bankrupt? 

-----

See Minsk, Derspiess here expresses one of the contradictions I was referring to: he wishes his fellow Americans would "care" but he, like so many so called 'conservatives', refuses to raise the taxes necessary to bring in more revenues.  In other words he wants to eat his cake and keep it.



G.

[Jacob]

There's a point where we're all gonna have to care.

But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?

Again looking at the Economist, earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that a 85%-15% split beteen spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations according to historical evidence. The White House was last offering an 83%-17% split.

[derspiess]

But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?

GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes.  IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s.  Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.

Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table.  We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).

I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt.  But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle.  Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.

[DGuller]

Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.

  Is "more productive elements of society" the new Republican bumper sticker slogan to justify tax cuts? 

Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table.  We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).

I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt.  But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle.  Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.

Like all uncritical GOP faithful, you seem to ignore the little inconvenient fact that current deficits to a large degree were caused by tax receipts falling through the floor.

[HisMajestyBOB]

GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes.  IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s.  Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.

Yeah, if we cut that corporate jet tax break, companies will hire even fewer people and unemployment will go through the roof.

[The Minsky Moment]

See Minsk, Derspiess here expresses one of the contradictions I was referring to: he wishes his fellow Americans would "care" but he, like so many so called 'conservatives', refuses to raise the taxes necessary to bring in more revenues.  In other words he wants to eat his cake and keep it.

I would agree that there are individuals who hold to views about the budget that are contradictory.

But that is a little different from talking about systemic internal contradictions in the Marxian sense.

[The Minsky Moment]

GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes.  IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s. 

What people forget is that Bush was right on that issue back then (just as he was right on the response to the S&L crisis).  Bush 41 helped lay the foundations for the economic expanision of the 90s yet he is viewed with contempt in his own camp for those same actions.  And that points to the deep ideological rot that afflicts the present day GOP.

Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO

The US is raising between 15-16% of its GDP in the form of federal revenue.  Query how does one run a defense establishment in excess of 5% of GDP, plus any pension or health care program plus all the rest of domestic spending plus the state block grants (without which state taxes must increase) at that revenue level.?

[Barrister]

But is 65% of the GDP net indebtedness (from the Economist, who characterizes that level as "perfectly affordable) really that point in time? And if you care about the deficit so mortally, why does "no increase in revenue at all" become the line in the sand?

GOP House members would have to go back on their pledges not to increase taxes.  IIRC, doing so hurt a certain GOP politician back in the early 90s.  Not to mention that tax increases are likely to fall disproportionately (or exclusively) on the backs of the more productive elements of society, and that's not exactly a smart way to get the economy back on track.

Spending is a much bigger part of the problem IMO, and until I see the Dems being serious about serious cuts in spending, I'd rather the GOP keep tax increases off the table.  We could eliminate the deficit without any tax increases (the outstanding debt is another issue, of course).

I realize that a tax increase of some sort may be necessary as a long-term solution to pay down debt.  But short-term, I don't want the GOP to budge in the current battle.  Get spending under control, and then we'll talk taxes.

But it seems rather unlikely democrats in congress and the President will agree to massive cuts in spending unless packaged together with some tax increases.

"Give me what I want now, and we'll talk about what you want later" is rarely an effective negotiating strategy.

[derspiess]

Like all uncritical GOP faithful, you seem to ignore the little inconvenient fact that current deficits to a large degree were caused by tax receipts falling through the floor.

...which were to a large degree caused by the recession. 

And I'm not uncritical of the GOP.  I've criticized the party leadership before & I'm sure I'll do it again.  In fact, it's almost guaranteed that I'll have something critical to say about them soon re: the budget battle.